You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I didn't ask for it in this thread. It's easy, just go to my profile, click on started threads, and you'll find the relevant ones near the top. I don't want to bring feedback on my type into every discussion because that would be selfish and egocentric, and would bore everyone.

And there is nothing boring or egocentric about this thread...
Like I said, why should I go to all that trouble to do you a favour? I'm not interested in your type, anyway.
I'm just (one of many) pointing out the untruthfulness of your claim to excel in logic.

You can't really believe you know the full picture of what goes on inside my head.

I'm rather relieved about that.

Originally Posted by greenfairy

Consider the idea that trees have spirits. Can we prove this? No. Can we prove it is not true? No.

I can't prove you're not an idiot, is that a good reason for me to believe you are?

The burden of proof is always on the person making nonsensical claims.

Originally Posted by Victor

a tree doesn't have a spirit.

You know you've entered the twilight zone when Victor is the one making sense.

Originally Posted by greenfairy

seeing ambiguity where it may not be does not validate the claim that I completely ignore logic, or that I employed a fallacy.

Yes. It does.

Originally Posted by Ivy

Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

Not necessarily, since it's taking a commonly interpreted statement and turning it into a logical one.

Your whole argument is built around interpreting the original statement "women love apples" differently than greenfairy interpreted it, and have kind of missed the point because of that.

You're asserting that there indeed exists a convention in formal logic for converting informal statements. I'd like to see the rule that says 'the all is implied' that you didn't just make up on the spot.

Yes, that much is true.

I'd like to know how "women love apples" could possibly mean the same thing as "some women love apples." You'd always have to add a temporal or spatial element to the sentence to do that, which would change the original sentence. Like, "women in Naples love apples," or "women loved apples in the 1960s," or "women loved apples more last year."

Or, as with @greenfairy's example in which she tried to demonstrate a situation in which they mean the same thing, you'd have to assume that the person saying "women love apples" was not being serious. That is, they either weren't sure of the truth of what they were saying (positing it as a hypothetical or hypothesis, in which case we wouldn't be evaluating the syntax, we'd be waiting for empirical confirmation of its truth value), or they didn't mean it (they were exaggerating, or joking, or whatever other rhetorical ploy) and actually intended to say something along the lines of "some women love apples."

Either way, there is no actual ambiguity when translating the sentence "women love apples" to FOL, even if there may be ambiguity in the intentions of the person who wrote/said it.

I'd also like to know how one can say "woman love apples" and have it mean "all women love apples" and actually have it be true in the real world.

This is relevant because the whole tangent of discussion was all about what is true in the real world to begin with, not what's true on paper.

But anyway, I already hashed this out with The Outsider

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FORMAL FIRST ORDER FUCKING LOGIC. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FORMAL FIRST ORDER FUCKING LOGIC. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FORMAL FIRST ORDER FUCKING LOGIC.

That's the only reason I responded, because of post #315. See here, ya dingus.

Originally Posted by greenfairy

Well, in logic the statement "women love apples" would be read as "some women love apples," and the statement "women hate apples" would be read as "some women hate apples." Hate being the opposite of love, you could say hate= not love, so this would translate as "some women love apples" and "some women do not love apples." These statements do not produce a contradiction. If you were to say all women love apples and all women hate apples, this would be read as "For every x that is a woman, it is the case that this x loves apples" combined with "For every x that is a woman it is the case that this x does not love apples." This would be a contradiction.